I don't think that complicating actions.xml is going to create problems for new users. Adding additional complexity to it would really help most of the people on this list. Also, creating an example that fully describes how to create your own actions.xml would be *extremely* simple. After all, XML files do "describe themselves," don't they?
Michael Blake Day Artistry Studios - e-commerce design, implementation and hosting -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:opensymphony-webwork-admin@;lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Maurice Parker Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Configuration (was RE: [OS-webwork] Webwork Security Requirements) Patrick Lightbody wrote: >http://radio.weblogs.com/0108886/2002/09/15.html > > Sheesh, this looks like a usability nightmare. Have I not been clear on my feelings about complicating the Action configuration? I get the impression that you are forcing more configuration on the enduser because you found that parsing the view URL to determine if it is a view or an action proved non-trivial. -Maurice >-Pat >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:30 AM >Subject: Configuration (was RE: [OS-webwork] Webwork Security Requirements) > > > > >>What are the current thoughts on moving to one form of configuration >>(i.e. getting rid of views.properties and just using actions.xml)? >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:plightbo@;cisco.com] >>Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:24 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Webwork Security Requirements >> >> >>Oh, good! I just thought two different ServletDispatchers would be nice >>to offer flexibility, but maybe only one is needed. Either way, doing it >>this way is nice also because internal actions are now not exposed at >>all. One of these days we might want to rename views.properties, since >>it's not views at all anyone, but action definitions. In fact, I'd be >>all for requiring an action to be aliased before it can be used (not >>more looking in the package). I alias all my actions before using them. >>This sorta goes back to my original hope that configuration be >>simplified and make much more sense in version 2.0. >> >>-Pat >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in >>Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be >>fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com >>_______________________________________________ >>Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> >> > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in >Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be >fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com >_______________________________________________ >Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
